EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Fischer RX8 correct length??
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Fischer RX8 correct length??

post #1 of 20
Thread Starter 
Hi everybody!
I am having a problem with choosing correct ski length of Fischer RX8 model. Hope you can help me!
First, my personal info:
- age 27, height: 6 foot (182cm), mass: 83kg (184lb), good physical condition
- skill: about Level 7-Level8. I ski mostly on blue/red hills but black ones are also ok if they are groomed. Not so good in carving but willing to improve!
- current ski: Fischer VC110 168cm (entry level ski, soft flex, long radius ~ 20m)

I was reading all your posts about Fischer RX8 (they were very helpful!!) and it seems to be a perfect choice for me - a good allround carving ski. I am leaning toward short - medium radius( sometimes GS arcs). The speed is not so important , high speed downhill is not my favor. I want from ski to behave good at speed about 20-40mph max.

Current ski are inadequate for such drive. They are too soft, with big radius (small radius turn is hard to do). If I would speed up in turns they will became unstable under foot. Ice or hard surface is also problem for this ski.

The main problem with RX8 is that I cannot decide between two length:165 and 170cm.
How much difference is between this two lengths?
How much stability would I get if I choose 170cm? Current ski is 168cm and I don't have much trouble with correct balance. Yes, sometimes it kicks me back but this is because I wasn't paying enough attention. I think I would be able to handle RX8 165cm length. Comments on that?

I know this is all about personal preferences and the best solution would be to demo this two length but I am not in position to do this.

Given all this information, can you suggest me what length to pick?

I know there are lot of you with RX8's and I would deeply appreciate any constructive advice!!

Regards!
post #2 of 20
I'd say 170 if you're skiing it as your only ski, and a 165 if your intent is ski it only on hard snow days.
post #3 of 20
The above advise is right on.
post #4 of 20

165 v 170

I am 180 lbs and level 7-8 skier. I have just ordered a pair of RX8s at 165. I was looking for the something with a shorter turn radius so I leaned to the 165. I am hoping the sacrifice in length will not result in a rattle at higher speed. If you look at the side cut it is almost identical to Fischer's softer slalom ski the Race SC so I figured the best to approach the length like a slalom stlye ski.

I am currently on a pair of Volkl AX3s at 170 and they are unshakable, but prefer long sweeping turns.

I am keeping the Volkls for know for days when we have a lot of crud piled up as they can bust through the crud like a hot knife to butter.

If the RX8s work out as reasonably versatile, I may go back to a one ski quiver.

I will let you know when the skis arrive how I get along.
post #5 of 20
I think you will be OK on a 165cm. I'm 215 Lbs and use a 175cm with good stability and grip.

The ski will provide quick turns and still be stable at GS type speeds.

The ski will perform well in soft "boot-top" snow and crud. A good ski for all East coast conditions or cruising the groomers out west.

Cheers,

Michael
post #6 of 20
I demoed both 165 and 170 when I bought them and liked the 165 better. I have not found a speed limit yet on this ski and I ski pretty fast. It likes short turns but will rip large gs turns and remain stable at high speed. My stats are 5'9" 250lb higher level skier, high advanced maybe expert. This is a quiver ski for me and I use it for groomers and hard snow conditions only and have a pair of bigger waisted 180cm ski for the soft stuff, you may want a little more length if you are planning on only having one ski for everything. I don't think you can go wrong either way.
post #7 of 20
I own the 170 cm; I'm 6', 167 lbs, advanced. Agree with Coach - This is my only ski for the east, all conditions including our ever rarer powder days and more common stiff manmade chop. If I were going to reserve it for smooth groomed, I'd ski the 165. If you go with the 170, try the binding to the 1.5 cm forward position; significant improvement in quickness, tip stability, with only a touch less forgiveness in bumps.
post #8 of 20
I say 170 cm because it will have a slightly longer sidecut radius. I'm about 165 5'9". I tried the RX8 in 170 and cannot imagine any condition that would make it seem too long. I could force any tight turn I wanted out of it at any speed.

Though it may be hard to imagine why you wouldn't want to make more turns down the hill, on more open hills it's sometimes nice to lengthen the turn radius, and I'm finding that my 13-m SCs do want to make small to medium turns ALL the time. This trait is more noticeable after a morning on my 70-m SG skis. Maybe if you don't do that you won't notice.
post #9 of 20
Based on your description "Not so good in carving", I am thinking the RX-6 might be a better ski for you. If you are not a strong carver, the RX-8 is going to be a lot of ski to handle. It's going to suck if you try to skid it. This is a ski that wants to be put on edge and carved athleticly. It will hook up with even a light edge, and if you're not prepared to carve with the ski I think it's going to be frustrating. The 6 is between the RX-8 and your current ski.
post #10 of 20
Thread Starter 
first, thank you all for the opinions!!!

Usually I ski on groomed terrains and hardpack snow. I don't have much opportunity to ski on powder, deep snow.
Based on your posts, it looks that 165 is more suited... hm.

ski-dad, congrats for the purchase! Let me know how you get along with them.

ghost,
large turns are ok to me and I would practice it more if I had chance. Hills where I am skiing are not so wide and they are often crowded with children,beginners and other skiers. So, you almost have to make slalom between them to avoid collision. This short to medium turns are more practical in such situations.

skier219,
yes, I am aware that RX8 is too much ski for me now and RX6 would be more appropriate. There are two reasons why I decided to by RX8:
1. as I said, I am willing to improve in carving. I'm planning to get extra hours with instructors in order to that. Of course, there are going to be problems at te first, but I am not afraid to put additional effort to solve them. I' very stubborn when it comes to that
2. in ski store near my place, there is an action sale where I can get RX8 (model 04/05, new ski, with FS11 RF2 bindings) for only 260$. So I could easily sell the ski if it's going to be to difficult to me
post #11 of 20
You had better snap those up before they disappear!
post #12 of 20
Coach is right on. I have skied both. The 170 is a bit more stable/speedy, the 165 tighter and a bit snappier. Either one would work just fine for you.
post #13 of 20
I bought mine in 170cm for the same reason that Coach13 states. If I travel to a "real" mountain and intend on skiing everything (bumps, trees, steeps), I still want the ski to be long enough to cruise fast. I think the 170cm is ideal.

If I stay on my local hill (flat hard groomers only), I take my SX:B5's. As nice as the RX-8 is, the Atomic's are better carvers and more predictable at speed.
post #14 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by skier219
Based on your description "Not so good in carving", I am thinking the RX-6 might be a better ski for you. If you are not a strong carver, the RX-8 is going to be a lot of ski to handle. It's going to suck if you try to skid it. This is a ski that wants to be put on edge and carved athleticly. It will hook up with even a light edge, and if you're not prepared to carve with the ski I think it's going to be frustrating. The 6 is between the RX-8 and your current ski.
219.. I dont think these are as difficult as you think.. I am hardly the good carver and these skis have yet to throw me off.. And OP, I am 140#s and I ski 165cm I would figure you would have no problem on 170s.. Just me 2 pence....
post #15 of 20
6'1" 190 - I ski the 170. I'd go with that. And I don't think you'll have any problem carving on them. If you're doing the right things, the RX8 rips.
post #16 of 20
I'm 16 yrs. old, 5 feet 9 in. about 135 lbs. and I ski a 165 RX8 and it works really well. I ski as fast as i possibly can, about lvl 8-10
post #17 of 20
Let me add further thoughts here -- my experience on my 180cm RX-8 is that they are spectacular carvers if you ski them hard and fast, athleticly. It's a high-energy ski that is lightweight but very stiff. Those characteristics, and my experience, leads me to think they will be the wrong ski if someone is not going to carve them hard and manage the ski's energy properly. I know it can be done, but what's the point? When I ski a more relaxed style on my RX-8, they certainly do OK, but it's obvious they are just tooling along for the ride.

I would say the RX-8 is for high-energy skiers who want to rip tight, short radius carves on hardpack. If that's not the main focus, then let's not kid ourselves -- there are much, much better skis out there. As much as I love the RX-8 for hard carving, I bought a pair of Elan M666 because they are better for powder, crud, and relaxed cruising. These are conditions where the RX-8 is not the best tool for the job; the M666 walks all over it.

One final thought, the RX-9 should be considered here, if only because it's longer turn radius makes it more versatile and less demanding. It's got the same construction and characteristics as the RX-8, just a shallower sidecut. This would be a better ski for an aspiring carver to grow into IMHO.
post #18 of 20
155 pounds, average skier, skied RX8 in 165. It's a noodle. Carves well, doesn't like to skid. If you get these and DON'T carve, they will not be much fun.

You can use either the 165 or the 170 - and at your weight and height, I believe that the 170 would be better.

At the price you quote, DON'T WAIT!!! BUY NOW!!!! Either length will work, and you'll have a real ski with good resale value compared to the purchase price you quote.
post #19 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by tassoti
2. in ski store near my place, there is an action sale where I can get RX8 (model 04/05, new ski, with FS11 RF2 bindings) for only 260$. So I could easily sell the ski if it's going to be to difficult to me

I wish I could find a price like that around my neighborhood!! Jump on it right now before someone else gets it. At that price buy two!
post #20 of 20
Thread Starter 
again, thank you all!

I managed to buy RX8 in 165cm, 170 was gone
(the price was still 260$.
My friend also bought RX4 Race SC (model 04/05, FX12 bindings) for 315$).

Yesterday I had a oportunity to try them and I am thrilled! So fun, so responsive and stable. Great ski! Despite the fact that conditions on course wasn't perfect( lots of snow fell during the night and ratrac didn't manage to groom the courses ) ski was still able to produce good results. Compared to my old ski they are five categories above!!

I'm only sorry that I didn't have chance to try 170cm. Maybe they would be even better. However, I belive I'm going to be pleased with this one.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Fischer RX8 correct length??